1996 (6) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....msp;The Respondents, engaged in manufacture, inter alia, of Band Aid brand adhesive dressing, availed of Modvat credit on `paper and paper Board' between August, 1990 to December, 1990. The department however felt that the Modvat credit availed of was in excess of Rs. 800/- per M.T. as permissible under Notification No. 257/87, dated 8-12-1987, and such excess credit availed of amounted to Rs. 18,323.23. Show Cause Notice dated 4-3-1991 was therefore issued. The respondents however contended that vide Notification No. 177/86, as it stood amended amongst others, by Notification No. 257/87, Modvat credit was restricted to Rs. 800/- per M.T. only so far as it related to duty under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and special duty of Excise u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tariff Act, 1975. Referring to the said Section, the ld. SDR has submitted that Additional Duty of Customs is levied in lieu of and equal to the Excise duty leviable on the goods manufactured domestically and is nothing but the excise duty for the goods manufactured abroad and brought into domestic market and as such the words "duty of Excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act" used in the Second proviso would automatically include the Additional Customs Duty levied under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. He has also pleaded that for the purpose of Modvat credit if there is a limit prescribed under the subject notification for the Central Excise Duty, and as such the goods produced domestically have a limited benefit in that r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s to what must have been intended. He has referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in M/s. Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave - 1978 (2) E.L.T. J-350. The ld. Advocate has also referred to the minutes of the Second meeting of the Regional Advisory Committee of Bombay-III Collectorate held on 19-6-1990, and has referred to Point No. 9 where this specific issue was raised, and the clarification given by the Departmental Authority. He has submitted that the subject demand is also raised by Central Excise Collectorate of Bombay-III, and the clarification so given is binding to them. 6. Considering the submissions, second proviso, requiring due interpretation as it stood, at the relevant time read thus : "Provided also that the credit of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he reference thereafter is made to all those various duties duly identified, they are referred to as "Specified Duties", and the same would also indicate that wherever the word "Specified Duties" is not used, that particular provision where such word is not used, is not intended to cover all or each one of the Duties so identified. 8. Re-reading the Second Proviso, particularly along with the First Proviso, of Para 2 of the Notification, where the phrase "Specified Duties" has been used, the said word "Specified Duty" is not used in the Second Proviso, and instead, two duties separately identified as (i) and (ii) in the first paragraph, have been mentioned. This therefore clearly indicates that, for the purpose of Second Proviso, on....